DOJ-OGR-00000141.tif

78a 2d 406, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Gaudin, 515 US. at 522-23). The charged statements do not fall within this narrow exception. Maxwell contends that the questions did not relate to the sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations at the center of the civil case, but that is not the legal standard. The Government may prevail if it proves that Maxwell’s answers could have led to the discovery of other evidence or could influence the factfinder in the civil case. See Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 509; Kross, 14 F.3d at 753-54. At trial, a reasonable juror could conclude that truthful answers to the questions may have permitted the plaintiff to locate other victims or witnesses who could have corroborated the plaintiff’s testimony. The factual disputes relating to materiality are at least enough to preclude pretrial resolution. In criminal cases, courts must guard against “invading the ‘inviolable function of the jury’ in our criminal justice system,” and if the “defense raises a factual dispute that is inextricably intertwined with a defendant’s potential culpability, a judge cannot resolve that dispute on a Rule 12(b) motion.” United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270, 281 (2d Cir. 2018). The Court concludes that the perjury charges are legally tenable and appropriately presented to the jury. V. The perjury charges must be severed and tried separately Although the perjury charges are legally tenable, the Court concludes that the interests of justice require severing those counts and trying them separately. Trying the perjury counts together with the Mann Act counts would require admitting evidence of other acts likely to be unduly prejudicial. It would also risk DOJ-OGR-00000141